About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 16
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
're hearing, it was that lowest threshold. >> now, senator lindsey graham is saying there was misspelled paperwork in the form of misspelled names. which resulted in a failure to follow up these individuals. is it really possible that a simple spelling error may have caused a breakdown in the communication here? >> i -- short answer, i don't know in this case. however, i will tell you that transliteration, in particular from arabic, for example, translated to english, vice versa, at times can cause con nu confusion to the system but not a breakdown. >> the relationship between intelligence agencies here and russia and perhaps a lack of cooperation between the two. >> well, at least through my time in government, with most allied countries and even nominal allies, at the law enforcement level and intel, usually quite good. it's kind of a comrade in arms type approach. there is, however, though, martin, sometimes there are political considerations. we don't know if we have that here. but in this case, if there was something really compelling on the russian side, it brings up the question,
a top republican like lindsey graham. >> the only thing you need to know about lindsey gram right now is that he's running for re-election. even though he knows better, even though he knows that dzhokhar, for example, is not going to be tried as an enemy combatant, even though he knows his allegations against the president are ridiculous, it's a way of him scoring political points. i'll say, you know, i don't think there's anything wrong as you were pointing out asking questions about, okay, did the fbi follow the right course here? >> the investigation. >> absolutely. but when you go for this nakedly political point instead, you actually undermine those sorts of honest investigations. because it turns it into political football rather than a real inquiry into what happened and if there was anything we could do or anything we could learn. >> i think, joan, there is a legitimate questions one could raise, whether i agree with them or you agree with them or not. >> right. >> but to rev up benghazi, too? it is clear they're trying to get all kind of old political points, mixing in with n
to change. >> lindsey graham is doing a whole bunch of talk radio this morning. it's clear to me, we know why they probably booked all these interviews. because they're worried that this is where the immigration issue could percolate where all of the sudden the connection to boston happens. >> i think it also shows that compared to the last time around in '06 and '07 the republicans who were for this type of legislation are a lot more active in trying to engage with the conservative critics. >> dan, that does seem to be a huge difference before, they would lament maybe to you in interviews. but they wouldn't actively try to fix this. >> yeah. you know, they're pushing forward in a way they weren't before. they're much more confident about the reasons why they're doing this. and they're -- they feel much less defensive about it when they're being criticized by their own people. >> at the press conference amongst the most eloquent were marco rubio. the marco rubio. >> you were there. richard. this was the most fascinating -- >> it's a definition of kumbaya. >> it got those many votes. stick
senators includes lindsey graham called for. senator graham challenged them saying the decision they made premature. let's listen. >> here's my concern. as a lawyer for over 30 years, civilian and military, i strongly support the concept that no criminal defendant should ever be required to incriminate themselves while they're in custody of the government. every nation at war should have the ability to defend themselves by gathering intelligence. these are not mutually exclusive concepts. i believe our nation is at war. the enemy is radical islam defined as the taliban, al qaeda, and affiliated groups. the question i have regarding this case, is there any association between these two individuals and the groups i just named, to allow enemy combatant status to be conferred upon the suspect in boston? >> let's drill down on the legal status of the boston bombing suspect. kendall coffey. the great jonathan turley, here in washington. thank you for this. can they decide later if a piece of evidence shows up a week from now, that shows a connection, e-mail, whatever, connection with al qaeda,
. again, on this sunday. mike, thanks. >>> south carolina senator lindsey graham is leading the charge to label the boston marathon suspect an enemy combatant. he explained why on cnn this morning. take a listen. >> when the public safety exception expires and it will soon this man, in my view, should be designated as a potential enemy combatant and we should be allowed to question him for intelligence gathering purposes to find out about future attacks and terrorist organizations that may exist that he has knowledge of and that evidence cannot be used against him in trial. >> the american civil liberties union, aclu, opposes this, "we must not waiver from our tried and true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. denial of rights is un-american and will only make it harder to obtain a fair conviction." how will this play out politically? with me, stephen smith of "the boston globe," dave weigel and lynn sweet of the chicago sun-times. good to see you all on this sunday. lynn, let me start with you here at least. four our republican senators joined in lindsey graham's call
that's the wrong legal path. senator lindsey graham of south carolina has said tsarnaev should be questioned by u.s. intelligence agencies. and then put on trial before a military commission, perhaps even at guantanamo bay in cuba. the obama administration has insisted that criminal trials can be just as effective, and tsarnaev is an american citizen, which could complicate putting him in a military court. the actual filing of criminal charges. that could come quite quickly. even within the next day or so. and the -- he would then appear before a federal magistrate. if he is not well enough to leave the hospital, that hearing could actually be done in his hospital room. alex? >> okay, pete, so what point does he get an attorney? >> well, he gets a lawyer during this questioning process for the next 48 hours. under this rule. he has no right to the miranda right. once he exercises his miranda warning, though -- once he exercises his miranda rights he has the choice to stop answering questions. but what the justice department says is, most people in these cases, surprisingly enou
't do that to an american citizen. what some advocates, republicans, are saying such as lindsey graham are -- we understand he's going to be tried in civilian court, but start the questioning. treat him as an enemy combatant under the law of war. question him by intelligence people. get all the intel you can. then turn him over to the civilian authorities. that's what they advocate. that's not going to happen, the administration has decided. he'll be questioned first by this special group set up in the last couple of years in terror cases called the high value detainee interrogation group, fbi, cia, dod. they will question him without giving him a miranda warning. r they don't have a long time to do that, probably no more than a day or so. then he'll be begin his miranda warning and we'll see if he continues to talk. in other terrorism cases, surprisingly, these people do keep talking. >> mike rogers, chairman, do you have a view how he should be treated in the criminal justice system? or should he be an enemy combatant? >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all o
like rubio, on somebody like lindsey graham up for re-election. on somebody even like john mccain and jeff blake. so it's not impossible for this to occur, but it got a whole lot more difficult. >> joy, here's how the "national review" captured rubio's visit there. "it was striking to see how much he is personally admired by the colorful conservative pundits who broadcast on local a.m. stations, and by the biggest syndicated names like limbaugh. they still believe, without a doubt, that he's a top contender for the republican presidential nomination in 2016 and they love that he's already a national force. but when it comes to immigration, they're not buying it." >> yeah. >> why? >> well, because, you know, at the end of the day the o's at the end of rubio's first and last names are quite valuable to the republican party as an avatar for bringing in more hispanic voters. the ideas he's saying are not useful. it's been kind of pathetic to see marco rubio, supposedly this towering figure, latino ronald reagan of the republican party going hat in hand to radio hosts, begging them
an enemy combatant are those republicans, among them john mccain and lindsey graham. but there's others, they say basically he should be treated as an enemy combatant for now and then handed over to civilian authorities. the information we're learning about his inability to communicate right now throws a wrench into a lot of that. but on the other side, we heard today from the chairman of the intelligence committee of the house, mike rogers, and here is his perspective on why he should not be treated like an enemy combatant. >> he's a citizen of the united states. i think that brings all of the protections of the u.s. constitution. under the public safety exception, however, i do believe that the fbi has a period of time to try to determine what threats are there today. we don't know if there's other devices. we don't know if there's other people. i think mirandizing him up front would be a horrible idea. >> so there are really a series of questions there. first, should he be treated as a criminal -- excuse me, as a -- i want to make sure i get it right, as an enemy combatant. that ques
senator lindsey graham, specifically from senator john mccain for the suspect to be treated as an enemy combatant. how is legal action at this point most likely to move forward? >> reporter: well, the obama administration would never go for that, partly as a policy matter. they have made it quite clear that civilian courts are up to the task and they think in many ways better than military tribunals which are untested. civilian courts have convicted lots of terrorism defendants. it will be a federal case. they'll charge him withes with use of a weapons of mass destruction. the maximum penalty is the death penalty. the government will have to decide whether to seek that or not. there's an additional wrinkle here. he is an american citizen. he was a naturalized citizen last year oddly on 9/11 of last year, and there is an open legal question about whether even if the government wanted to, it could declare an american citizen captured on u.s. soil as an enemy combatant. it's an untested question. the government tried to do it in the case of jose padilla several years ago and as that case w
got in terms of a note that was handed to me talking about a few senators, lindsey graham, john mccain, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king, all of whom have said this suspect based on his actions clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. we do not want this suspect to remain silent. talk about that in terms of what prosecutors are doing right now. is that the path down which prosecutors and any investigators are going right now? >> well, it's unclear whether or not they're going down that path to identify and designate him as an enemy combatant but they should at least go down the path to determine whether or not that is the designation they should make for this particular person. then they should do it based on our national security, national interest to determine whether or not identifying him as an enemy combatant will actually enhance our national security and national interest. >> what about the charges? what do you expect them to be against dzhokhar. >> well, if he's not designated as an enemy combat eant he wille charged federally. the first decision has to b
, republican senators lindsey graham, kelly ayotte, congressman peter king a short time ago, issued a statement this morning asking for the suspect to be tried as an enemy combatant. they said, in part, "we do not want the suspect to remain silent." senator chambliss, vice chair of the subcommittee on violence said "i'm disappointed that it appears this administration is once again relying on miranda's public safety exception to gather intelligence which only allows, at best, a 48-hour waiting period that may expire since the suspect has been critically wounded." will there be a public outcry, ed o'keefe, about all that's given, the suspect is a natural citizen? >> with those five senators -- lawmakers, certainly the outcry could potentially be beginning. it's no surprise that that quintet, if you will, is calling for the administration to handle him as what they describe as an enemy combat talent. the obama administration doesn't use that term anymore it allows for an indefinite detention of someone under national security concerns. that's what they are hoping for. we will see what the justice
president obama is calling it terror. lindsey graham sweet twooetieet telling him to remain silent. that would be the last thing. somehow terrorism makes it fine, right? >> we don't really know if this is terrorism. we don't know if there's political motivations. >> we don't know. we have to establish the definition of terror. everybody was terrorized. the political definition is something else. secondly, john ralston said imagine if you're the person subjected to the recriminations you want to put forth. be very careful if something happens in your family and your kid does something and your kid is on the terror list and the no-fly list, that's a different kettle of fish. it's unfamiliar evil versus familiar evil. when you made the point about we've incubated in our own culture a homegrown terrorist, that strikes terror at the heart of america. guess what? hey, ask the minority people, we're familiar with homegrown domestic terrorists. those ain't muslim, they're christian and twisting the cross and doing things. we have to be very careful about assuming that immediately this was
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)